D&D 5E Are players always entitled to see their own rolls?

[Sezarious]

To elaborate. On reading the post by Elfcrusher about Persuasion, Deception, Intimidation and insight rolls, between PC's and NPC's, might it be appropriate in a heavily investigative campaign with lots of role play, that the DM might record the above mentioned skill bonuses of each PC and actually role for them?

I'm not saying this would be something to use every time, perhaps when they were up against a particularly charismatic enemy, it could add an element to the game of uncertainty. After all, knowing your results can often allow you to figure out truth or lie via metagaming.

 

[JediGamemaster]

my first rule of gameing is if you don't trust the person next to you, the game is going to take a major hit. This means passing notes and secrete rolls while they have a place should never be used only because you think your players will metagame. Having said that if used well they are useful tools.

 

[Sezarious]

Oh, I don't not trust my players, I just think that when players investigate if something is the truth or a lie it can be difficult to execute such scenarios in D&D as a DM. Players out of game have an idea at least as to their success based on the result they see. For some, I think it may be difficult NOT to metagame on some level in that situation, even if they have every intention not to.

To re-phrase myself based on what you have mentioned about tools; what do you think about the idea of situational secret rolling in social situations, where the DM deliberately rolls on behalf of the player/s concealing the results in order to build suspense?

 

[Azurewraith]

My players would hang me if i even tried

 

[iltharanos]

Oh, I don't not trust my players, I just think that when players investigate if something is the truth or a lie it can be difficult to execute such scenarios in D&D as a DM. Players out of game have an idea at least as to their success based on the result they see. For some, I think it may be difficult NOT to metagame on some level in that situation, even if they have every intention not to.

To re-phrase myself based on what you have mentioned about tools; what do you think about the idea of situational secret rolling in social situations, where the DM deliberately rolls on behalf of the player/s concealing the results in order to build suspense?

Well, the situational secret rolling implies that your players will metagame rather than roleplay the result of the roll, which further implies a bit of a lack of trust, or at least a lack of immersion in your campaign. If you haven't already, I'd discuss your expectations of staying in-role depending on the results their characters know (so no metagaming). If you can trust them to roleplay what their characters know, then it'll obviate the need for secret DM rolls for the PCs.

 

[iserith]

To elaborate. On reading the post by Elfcrusher about Persuasion, Deception, Intimidation and insight rolls, between PC's and NPC's, might it be appropriate in a heavily investigative campaign with lots of role play, that the DM might record the above mentioned skill bonuses of each PC and actually role for them?

I'm not saying this would be something to use every time, perhaps when they were up against a particularly charismatic enemy, it could add an element to the game of uncertainty. After all, knowing your results can often allow you to figure out truth or lie via metagaming.

I'm against secretly rolling for the players or forcing the players (through social contract) to play a particular way based on the outcome of a die roll. It's unnecessary in my view.

When a player takes an action that has an uncertain outcome, he or she putting something on the line in my game. I make the stakes as clear as I can. Either the stakes are obvious based on the context established up to that point or I state them outright e.g. this is what happens if you succeed, this is what happens if you fail. When the die is cast and an outcome determine, there is no illusion as to success or failure. Uncertainty is resolved by a die roll, not reinforced, in my view.

A lot of DMs make die rolls for the players to avoid "metagaming," but it's often the way the DM adjudicates that is setting up the opportunity to "metagame" in the first place. Change the way you adjudicate and this isn't an issue.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

IMO the best way to reduce metagaming at the table is to make all dice rolls -- DM and Player -- in the open. Everyone sees the rolls are fair, and it becomes obvious when someone metagames.

If you have a situation you don't want to leave to dice and thus don't want to roll in the open ("DM fudging"), don't use the dice and just use your best judgment.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

"Entitled" is not the right word for it, as that word carries a certain implication that is unhelpful.

That said, I believe there is no reason not to have the players roll dice and see the results of those dice - if anything, it encourages the DM to use dice appropriately because doing so means that it doesn't matter if the roll is successful or not the player is armed with information that they can act on in good faith.

And, because I never tire of saying it: There is no such thing as "metagaming" outside of inventing it and requiring it be done in order to "avoid metagaming." - so metagaming is certainly not a reason to change the way that dice are rollled.

 

[RCanine]

I had a DM that did this in a great way, and he only did it when the outcome of the uncertain roll would not be apparent to the character.

He had a dice box and he'd hold it just above the player's eye level, and tell them to throw a die in, then he could lower the box so only he could see it.

Doing this added a bunch of dramatic tension. It's not something I recommend doing all of the time, but at the right moment it was great.